Novel Textbook Outcomes following emergency laparotomy: Delphi exercise.

BACKGROUND: Textbook outcomes are composite outcome measures that reflect the ideal overall experience for patients. There are many of these in the elective surgery literature but no textbook outcomes have been proposed for patients following emergency laparotomy. The aim was to achieve international consensus amongst experts and patients for the best Textbook Outcomes for non-trauma and trauma emergency laparotomy. METHODS: A modified Delphi exercise was undertaken with three planned rounds to achieve consensus regarding the best Textbook Outcomes based on the category, number and importance (Likert scale of 1-5) of individual outcome measures. There were separate questions for non-trauma and trauma. A patient engagement exercise was undertaken after round 2 to inform the final round. RESULTS: A total of 337 participants from 53 countries participated in all three rounds of the exercise. The final Textbook Outcomes were divided into 'early' and 'longer-term'. For non-trauma patients the proposed early Textbook Outcome was 'Discharged from hospital without serious postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ grade III; including intra-abdominal sepsis, organ failure, unplanned re-operation or death). For trauma patients it was 'Discharged from hospital without unexpected transfusion after haemostasis, and no serious postoperative complications (adapted Clavien-Dindo for trauma ≥ grade III; including intra-abdominal sepsis, organ failure, unplanned re-operation on or death)'. The longer-term Textbook Outcome for both non-trauma and trauma was 'Achieved the early Textbook Outcome, and restoration of baseline quality of life at 1 year'. CONCLUSION: Early and longer-term Textbook Outcomes have been agreed by an international consensus of experts for non-trauma and trauma emergency laparotomy. These now require clinical validation with patient data.

Patterns and Outcomes in Pediatric Abdominal Tuberculosis: A Single Centre Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Abdominal tuberculosis presents in a variety of ways. Different testing modalities must be applied in addition to having a high clinical suspicion to diagnose and initiate therapy. Medications have a good response; however, morbidity has been seen following surgical management of complicated presentations like intestinal obstruction and perforation. There is a paucity of studies in the pediatric age group which evaluate response to the different treatment regimen and identify factors associated with poorer outcomes in children with abdominal tuberculosis. METHODS: Patient records of 75 children with abdominal tuberculosis at a single center were evaluated using a questionnaire, covering a 14-year period from 2007 to 2021. Demographic features, presenting signs and symptoms, investigations and treatment details were studied. In- person or telephonic follow-up was conducted to identify treatment outcomes. RESULTS: Incidence of abdominal TB was 7%, of all TB children with a mean age of 10.1 years. Mesenteric lymph nodes were involved in 67% and small intestine in 33% cases. Surgery was required in 22 children. 85% children completed treatment. Small intestine involvement had higher probability of undergoing surgery. Of the 70 children with complete follow up, 64 were well and 6 children succumbed to the disease. Older age, small intestine involvement and surgery were independently associated with higher mortality. CONCLUSION: Intestinal involvement is associated with greater need for surgical intervention and greater mortality. Adolescents have poorer outcomes. Further studies are required focusing on these individual subgroups to understand the patterns of presentation, causes for mortality and prevention. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 5.

A Prospective, Observational Cost Comparison of Laparoscopic and Open Appendicectomy in Three Tertiary Hospitals in Nigeria.

BACKGROUND: The clinical benefits of laparoscopic appendicectomy are well recognized over open appendicectomy. However, laparoscopic procedures are not frequently conducted in many low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) for several reasons, including perceived higher costs. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and cost of laparoscopic appendicectomy compared to open appendicectomy in Nigeria. METHODS: A multicenter, prospective, cohort study among patients undergoing appendicectomy was conducted at three tertiary hospitals in Nigeria. Data were collected from October 2020 to February 2022 and analyses compared the average healthcare costs at 30 days after surgery. Quantile regression was conducted to identify variables that had an impact on the costs, reported in Nigerian Naira (Naira) and US dollars ($), with standard deviations (SD). FINDINGS: This study included 105 patients, of which 39 had laparoscopic appendicectomy and 66 had open appendicectomy. The average healthcare cost of laparoscopic appendicectomy (147,562 Naira (SD: 97,130) or $355 (SD: 234)) was higher than open appendicectomy (113,556 Naira (SD: 88,559) or $273 (SD: 213)). The average time for return to work was shorter with laparoscopic than open appendicectomy (mean: 8 days vs. 14 days). At the average daily income of $5.06, laparoscopic appendicectomy was associated with 9778 Naira or $24 cost savings in return to work. Further, 5.1% of laparoscopic appendicectomy patients had surgical site infections compared to 22.7% for open appendicectomy. Regression analysis results showed that laparoscopic appendicectomy was associated with $14 higher costs than open appendicectomy, albeit non-significant (p = 0.53). INTERPRETATION: Despite selection bias in this real-world study, laparoscopic appendicectomy was associated with a slightly higher overall cost, a lower societal cost, a lower infection rate, and a faster return to work, compared to open appendicectomy. It is technically and financially feasible, and its provision in Nigeria should be expanded.

Prognostic models for surgical-site infection in gastrointestinal surgery: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Identification of patients at high risk of surgical-site infection may allow clinicians to target interventions and monitoring to minimize associated morbidity. The aim of this systematic review was to identify and evaluate prognostic tools for the prediction of surgical-site infection in gastrointestinal surgery. METHODS: This systematic review sought to identify original studies describing the development and validation of prognostic models for 30-day SSI after gastrointestinal surgery (PROSPERO: CRD42022311019). MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, and IEEE Xplore were searched from 1 January 2000 to 24 February 2022. Studies were excluded if prognostic models included postoperative parameters or were procedure specific. A narrative synthesis was performed, with sample-size sufficiency, discriminative ability (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve), and prognostic accuracy compared. RESULTS: Of 2249 records reviewed, 23 eligible prognostic models were identified. A total of 13 (57 per cent) reported no internal validation and only 4 (17 per cent) had undergone external validation. Most identified operative contamination (57 per cent, 13 of 23) and duration (52 per cent, 12 of 23) as important predictors; however, there remained substantial heterogeneity in other predictors identified (range 2-28). All models demonstrated a high risk of bias due to the analytic approach, with overall low applicability to an undifferentiated gastrointestinal surgical population. Model discrimination was reported in most studies (83 per cent, 19 of 23); however, calibration (22 per cent, 5 of 23) and prognostic accuracy (17 per cent, 4 of 23) were infrequently assessed. Of externally validated models (of which there were four), none displayed 'good' discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve greater than or equal to 0.7). CONCLUSION: The risk of surgical-site infection after gastrointestinal surgery is insufficiently described by existing risk-prediction tools, which are not suitable for routine use. Novel risk-stratification tools are required to target perioperative interventions and mitigate modifiable risk factors.

This study is about finding ways to predict if someone will get an infection after having surgery on their stomach and intestines. If doctors know who is at high risk of getting an infection, they can take steps to prevent it and help the patient recover faster. The researchers looked at all the recent studies that have tried to predict who might get an infection after surgery. They found 23 studies that were good enough to look at in more detail. The researchers found that the studies they looked at were not very good at predicting who might get an infection. Most of the studies did not even check if their predictions were accurate. The few studies that did check were not very good at it. This means that doctors cannot use these predictions to help their patients. This means that doctors need to find better ways to predict who might get an infection after surgery on their stomach and intestines. If they can do this, they can help their patients recover faster and avoid problems like infections.

Variation in postoperative outcomes of patients with intracranial tumors: insights from a prospective international cohort study during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the international variation in surgical neuro-oncology practice and 30-day outcomes of patients who had surgery for an intracranial tumor during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We prospectively included adults aged ≥18 years who underwent surgery for a malignant or benign intracranial tumor across 55 international hospitals from 26 countries. Each participating hospital recorded cases for 3 consecutive months from the start of the pandemic. We categorized patients' location by World Bank income groups (high [HIC], upper-middle [UMIC], and low- and lower-middle [LLMIC]). Main outcomes were a change from routine management, SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 30-day mortality. We used a Bayesian multilevel logistic regression stratified by hospitals and adjusted for key confounders to estimate the association between income groups and mortality. RESULTS: Among 1016 patients, the number of patients in each income group was 765 (75.3%) in HIC, 142 (14.0%) in UMIC, and 109 (10.7%) in LLMIC. The management of 200 (19.8%) patients changed from usual care, most commonly delayed surgery. Within 30 days after surgery, 14 (1.4%) patients had a COVID-19 diagnosis and 39 (3.8%) patients died. In the multivariable model, LLMIC was associated with increased mortality (odds ratio 2.83, 95% credible interval 1.37-5.74) compared to HIC. CONCLUSIONS: The first wave of the pandemic had a significant impact on surgical decision-making. While the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection within 30 days after surgery was low, there was a disparity in mortality between countries and this warrants further examination to identify any modifiable factors.

Is perioperative COVID-19 really associated with worse surgical outcomes? A nationwide COVIDSurg propensity-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing surgery with perioperative COVID-19 are suggested to have worse outcomes, but whether this is COVID-related or due to selection bias remains unclear. We aimed to compare the postoperative outcomes of patients with and without perioperative COVID-19. METHODS: Patients with perioperative COVID-19 diagnosed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery between February and July 2020 from 68 US hospitals in COVIDSurg, an international multicenter database, were 1:1 propensity score matched to patients without COVID-19 undergoing similar procedures in the 2012 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. The matching criteria included demographics (e.g., age, sex), comorbidities (e.g., diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease), and operation characteristics (e.g., type, urgency, complexity). The primary outcome was 30-day hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay and 13 postoperative complications (e.g., pneumonia, renal failure, surgical site infection). RESULTS: A total of 97,936 patients were included, 1,054 with and 96,882 without COVID-19. Prematching, COVID-19 patients more often underwent emergency surgery (76.1% vs. 10.3%, p < 0.001). A total of 843 COVID-19 and 843 non-COVID-19 patients were successfully matched based on demographics, comorbidities, and operative characteristics. Postmatching, COVID-19 patients had a higher mortality (12.0% vs. 8.1%, p = 0.007), longer length of stay (6 [2-15] vs. 5 [1-12] days), and higher rates of acute renal failure (19.3% vs. 3.0%, p < 0.001), sepsis (13.5% vs. 9.0%, p = 0.003), and septic shock (11.8% vs. 6.0%, p < 0.001). They also had higher rates of thromboembolic complications such as deep vein thrombosis (4.4% vs. 1.5%, p < 0.001) and pulmonary embolism (2.5% vs. 0.4%, p < 0.001) but lower rates of bleeding (11.6% vs. 26.1%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing surgery with perioperative COVID-19 have higher rates of 30-day mortality and postoperative complications, especially thromboembolic, compared with similar patients without COVID-19 undergoing similar surgeries. Such information is crucial for the complex surgical decision making and counseling of these patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiologic; Level IV.

Surgical implementation gap: an interrupted time series analysis with interviews examining the impact of surgical trials on surgical practice in England.

OBJECTIVES: Landmark studies published near the turn of the 21st century found an implementation gap concerning the effect of evidenced-based findings on clinical practice. The current study examines the uptake of six trials that produced actionable findings to describe the effects of evidence on practice and the reasons for those effects. DESIGN: A sequential, explanatory mixed methods study was conducted. First, a quantitative study assessed whether actionable findings from large, publicly funded elective surgical trials influenced practice. Subsequently, qualitative interviews were conducted to explain the quantitative findings. SETTING: Changes in NHS-funded practice were tracked across hospitals in England. Interviews were conducted online. DATA AND PARTICIPANTS: The six surgical trials were funded and published by England's National Institute for Health Research's Health Technology Assessment programme between 2006 and 2015. Quantitative time series analyses used data about the frequencies or proportions of relevant surgical procedures conducted in England between 2001 and 2020. Subsequently, qualitative interviews were conducted with 25 participants including study authors, surgeons and other healthcare staff in the supply chain. Transcripts were coded to identify major temporal events and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) domains/constructs that could influence implementation. Findings were synthesised by clinical area. RESULTS: The quantitative analyses reveal that practice changed in accordance with findings for three trials. In one trial (percutaneous vs nasogastric tube feed after stroke), the change took a decade to occur. In another (patella resurfacing), change anticipated the trial findings. In the third (abdominal aortic aneurysm repair), changes tracked the evolving evidence base. In the remaining trials (two about varicose veins and one about gastric reflux), practice did not change in line with findings. For varicose veins, the results were superseded by a further trial. For gastric reflux, surgical referrals declined as medical treatment increased. The exploratory qualitative analysis informed by CFIR found that evidence from sources apart from the trial in question was mentioned as a reason for non-adoption in the three trials where evidence did not affect practice and in the trial where uptake was delayed. There were no other consistent patterns in the qualitative data. CONCLUSION: While practice does not always change in the direction indicated by clinical trials, our results suggest that individuals, official committees and professional societies do assimilate trial evidence. Decision-makers seem to respond to the totality of evidence such that there are often plausible reasons for not adopting the evidence of any one trial in isolation.

The first international Delphi consensus statement on Laparoscopic Gastrointestinal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery has almost replaced open surgery in many areas of Gastro-Intestinal (GI) surgery. There is currently no published expert consensus statement on the principles of laparoscopic GI surgery. This may have affected the training of new surgeons. This exercise aimed to achieve an expert consensus on important principles of laparoscopic GI surgery. METHODS: A committee of 38 international experts in laparoscopic GI surgery proposed and voted on 149 statements in two rounds following a strict modified Delphi protocol. RESULTS: A consensus was achieved on 133 statements after two rounds of voting. All experts agreed on tailoring the first port site to the patient, whereas 84.2% advised avoiding the umbilical area for pneumoperitoneum in patients who had a prior midline laparotomy. Moreover, 86.8% agreed on closing all 15 mm ports irrespective of the patient's body mass index. There was a 100% consensus on using cartridges of appropriate height for stapling, checking the doughnuts after using circular staplers, and keeping the vibrating blade of the ultrasonic energy device in view and away from vascular structures. An 84.2% advised avoiding drain insertion through a ≥10 mm port site as it increases the risk of port-site hernia. There was 94.7% consensus on adding laparoscopic retrieval bags to the operating count and ensuring any surgical specimen left inside for later removal is added to the operating count. CONCLUSION: Thirty-eight experts achieved a consensus on 133 statements concerning various aspects of laparoscopic GI Surgery. Increased awareness of these could facilitate training and improve patient outcomes.

The impact of preoperative oral nutrition supplementation on outcomes in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery for cancer in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Malnutrition is an independent predictor for postoperative complications in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We systematically reviewed evidence on the impact of preoperative oral nutrition supplementation (ONS) on patients undergoing gastrointestinal cancer surgery in LMICs. We searched EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, WHO Global Index Medicus, SciELO, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) databases from inception to March 21, 2022 for randomised controlled trials evaluating preoperative ONS in gastrointestinal cancer within LMICs. We evaluated the impact of ONS on all postoperative outcomes using random-effects meta-analysis. Seven studies reported on 891 patients (446 ONS group, 445 control group) undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancer. Preoperative ONS reduced all cause postoperative surgical complications (risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% CI 0.46-0.60, P < 0.001, I2 = 0%, n = 891), infection (0.52, 0.40-0.67, P = 0.008, I2 = 0%, n = 570) and all-cause mortality (0.35, 0.26-0.47, P = 0.014, I2 = 0%, n = 588). Despite heterogeneous populations and baseline rates, absolute risk ratio (ARR) was reduced for all cause (pooled effect -0.14, -0.22 to -0.06, P = 0.006; number needed to treat (NNT) 7) and infectious complications (-0.13, -0.22 to -0.06, P < 0.001; NNT 8). Preoperative nutrition in patients undergoing gastrointestinal cancer surgery in LMICs demonstrated consistently strong and robust treatment effects across measured outcomes. However additional higher quality research, with particular focus within African populations, are urgently required.

Outcomes of gynecologic cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: an international, multicenter, prospective CovidSurg-Gynecologic Oncology Cancer study.

BACKGROUND: The CovidSurg-Cancer Consortium aimed to explore the impact of COVID-19 in surgical patients and services for solid cancers at the start of the pandemic. The CovidSurg-Gynecologic Oncology Cancer subgroup was particularly concerned about the magnitude of adverse outcomes caused by the disrupted surgical gynecologic cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic, which are currently unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the changes in care and short-term outcomes of surgical patients with gynecologic cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic. We hypothesized that the COVID-19 pandemic had led to a delay in surgical cancer care, especially in patients who required more extensive surgery, and such delay had an impact on cancer outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: This was a multicenter, international, prospective cohort study. Consecutive patients with gynecologic cancers who were initially planned for nonpalliative surgery, were recruited from the date of first COVID-19-related admission in each participating center for 3 months. The follow-up period was 3 months from the time of the multidisciplinary tumor board decision to operate. The primary outcome of this analysis is the incidence of pandemic-related changes in care. The secondary outcomes included 30-day perioperative mortality and morbidity and a composite outcome of unresectable disease or disease progression, emergency surgery, and death. RESULTS: We included 3973 patients (3784 operated and 189 nonoperated) from 227 centers in 52 countries and 7 world regions who were initially planned to have cancer surgery. In 20.7% (823/3973) of the patients, the standard of care was adjusted. A significant delay (>8 weeks) was observed in 11.2% (424/3784) of patients, particularly in those with ovarian cancer (213/1355; 15.7%; P<.0001). This delay was associated with a composite of adverse outcomes, including disease progression and death (95/424; 22.4% vs 601/3360; 17.9%; P=.024) compared with those who had operations within 8 weeks of tumor board decisions. One in 13 (189/2430; 7.9%) did not receive their planned operations, in whom 1 in 20 (5/189; 2.7%) died and 1 in 5 (34/189; 18%) experienced disease progression or death within 3 months of multidisciplinary team board decision for surgery. Only 22 of the 3778 surgical patients (0.6%) acquired perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infections; they had a longer postoperative stay (median 8.5 vs 4 days; P<.0001), higher predefined surgical morbidity (14/22; 63.6% vs 717/3762; 19.1%; P<.0001) and mortality (4/22; 18.2% vs 26/3762; 0.7%; P<.0001) rates than the uninfected cohort. CONCLUSION: One in 5 surgical patients with gynecologic cancer worldwide experienced management modifications during the COVID-19 pandemic. Significant adverse outcomes were observed in those with delayed or cancelled operations, and coordinated mitigating strategies are urgently needed.

A Qualitative Exploration of Nutrition Screening, Assessment and Oral Support Used in Patients Undergoing Cancer Surgery in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Preoperative undernutrition is a prognostic indicator for postoperative mortality and morbidity. Evidence suggests that treating undernutrition can improve surgical outcomes. This study explored the provision of nutritional screening, assessment and support on surgical cancer wards in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This was a qualitative study and participants took part in one focus group or one individual interview. Data were analysed thematically. There were 34 participants from Ghana, India, the Philippines and Zambia: 24 healthcare professionals (HCPs) and 10 patients. Results showed that knowledge levels and enthusiasm were high in HCPs. Barriers to adequate nutritional support were a lack of provision of ward and kitchen equipment, food and sustainable nutritional supplements. There was variation across countries towards nutritional screening and assessment which seemed to be driven by resources. Many hospitals where resources were scarce focused on the care of individual patients in favour of an integrated systems approach to identify and manage undernutrition. In conclusion, there is scope to improve the efficiency of nutritional management of surgical cancer patients in LMICs through the integration of nutrition assessment and support into routine hospital policies and procedures, moving from case management undertaken by interested personnel to a system-based approach including the whole multidisciplinary team.

Collaboration in colorectal surgical research.

Surgical research has been under-powered, under-funded and under-delivered for decades. A solution may be to form large research collaborations and thereby enable implementation of successful interventional trials as well as robust international observational studies with thousands of patients. There are many such research collaborations in colorectal surgery, and in this paper we have highlighted the experiences from the West Midlands Research Collaborative (WMRC), the Scandinavian Surgical Outcomes Research Group (SSORG) and the European Society of Coloproctology. With active research networks, it is possible to deliver large, high-quality studies and provide high-level evidence for solving important clinical questions in an efficient and timely manner.